This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Introduction During the care of incapacitated patients, physicians, and medical residents discuss treatment options and gain consent to treat through healthcare surrogates. The purpose of this study is to ascertain medical residents’ knowledge of healthcare consent laws, application during clinical practice, and appraise the education residents received regarding surrogate decision making laws. Methods Beginning in February of 2018, 35 of 113 medical residents working with patients within Indiana completed a survey. The survey explored medical residents’ knowledge of health care surrogate consent laws utilized in Indiana hospitals and Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals via clinical vignettes. Results Only 22.9% of medical residents knew the default state law in Indiana did not have a hierarchy for settling disputes among surrogates. Medical residents correctly identified which family members could participate in medical decisions 86% of the time. Under the Veterans Affairs surrogate law, medical residents correctly identified appropriate family members or friends 50% of the time and incorrectly acknowledged the chief decision makers during a dispute 30% of the time. All medical residents report only having little or some knowledge of surrogate decision making laws with only 43% having remembered receiving surrogate decision making training during their residency. Conclusions These findings demonstrate that medical residents lack understanding of surrogate decision making laws. In order to ensure medical decisions are made by the appropriate surrogates and patient autonomy is upheld, an educational intervention is required to train medical residents about surrogate decision making laws and how they are used in clinical practice.

with an RFBM within 4 hours after each dose for $2 of the first 4 doses versus placebo (5.3% cancer; 11.3% non-cancer). Median time to laxation was significantly (P#0.0002) shorter in cancer (0.96 hours) and noncancer (1.25 hours) patients 24 hours after the first dose versus placebo ($23 hours). Rescue laxatives were used by 39.7% of cancer and 30.6% of non-cancer MNTX patients versus 51.8% and 39.4% of placebo patients. Of 108 open-label extension doubleblind MNTX patients, 79 (73.1%) achieved $3 RFBMs/week with $1 RFBM/week increase in $3 of 4 weeks versus 48 (46.6%) of 103 double-blind placebo patients (data from double-blind and 2 weeks of openlabel). Conclusion. MNTX improved laxation with a faster onset and reduced rescue laxative use.

Objective: To determine self-reported incidences of health and safety hazards among persons who ride rentable electric scooters (e-scooters), knowledge of e-scooter laws, and attitudes and perceptions of the health and safety of e-scooter usage. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of n= 561 e-scooter riders and non-riders was conducted during June of 2019. Results: Almost half of respondents (44%) report that e-scooters pose a threat to the health and safety of riders. Riders and non-riders disagree regarding the hazards that e-scooters pose to pedestrians. Among riders, 15% report crashing or falling off an e-scooter. Only 2.5% of e-scooter riders self-report that they always wear a helmet while riding. Conclusions: E-scooter riders report substantial rates of harmful behavior and injuries. Knowledge of e-scooter laws is limited, and e-scooters introduce threats to the health and safety of riders, pedestrians on sidewalks, and automobile drivers. Enhanced public health interventions are needed to educate about potential health risks and laws associated with e-scooter use and to ensure health in all policies. Additionally, greater consideration should be given to public health, safety, and injury prevention when passing relevant state and local e-scooter laws.